Relationship of Parental Alexithymia and Neglect with Healthy Children's Maladjustment in Families with and Without Autistic Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family factors predict the incidence of developmental incompatibilities and psychological disorders. Moreover, having a child with autism can be an overwhelming experience for some families. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the role of neglect and alexithymia in parents with or without an autistic child on the maladjustment level of their healthy children. Methods: In this descriptive-correlational study, two groups of families with (n = 16) and without (n = 16) an autistic child in the cities of Zahedan and Birjand were selected by the convenience sampling method. Data were collected using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Child Abuse Questionnaire (self-report scale), and Rutter's Child Behavior Disorders Questionnaire (parent form), which were then analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and stepwise multiple regression test. Results: Significant results were obtained for specific and joint relationships between parental alexithymia and neglect and maladjustment of their healthy children (P = 0.041). However, the results obtained for the effect of the presence or absence of an autistic child in the family as a moderating variable were not significant (P = 0.556). Parental alexithymia had a significant positive correlation (r = 0.565, P = 0.001), and parental neglect had a significant negative correlation (r = -0.393, P = 0.029) with maladjustment of healthy children in the family. Conclusions: Neglect and alexithymia in parents specifically and jointly correlate significantly with their healthy child's maladjustment. However, the presence or absence of an autistic child in the family has no significant effect on this relationship. Parental alexithymia is a stronger predictor of the maladjustments of healthy children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".